How should Cardinal Pell be compensated for his wrongful conviction?

that was most pathetic miscarriage of justice i have ever seen. I don't care if he's guilty or not- embarrassing for a system of justice to convict in a case that ridiculous

anti catholic hysteria. same thing has swept ireland. England had it in 17th century! laughable cases- Titus oates etc

He dindu nuffins.

And there's a big chance he is guilty and just jewed the system.

Cardinal Pell was Melbourne Archbishop. Tried to make Catholic education system in Victoria less leftarded. He was one of the few prominent social conservatives left in Australia. He was a climate change skeptic. He was about third in line to become pope. He was investigating financial corruption in the Vatican.

Australia is a country of godless white trash. Melbourne is a city of communist poofters. So the entire media establishment was salivating over his spilled blood.

The forensic details of the case make the allegations seem absurd. In a crowded busy cathedral he ducked into the sacristy for 60 seconds to rape 2 altar boys and then he putted over to the entrance a minute later to casually greet parishioners as they left mass.

Lawfag here
Just hear about this, there's going to be a serious shitstorm

>Cardinal Pell’s case before the High Court was that it was not open to a jury, on the whole of the evidence, to find him guilty as charged, and that the Victorian Court of Appeal majority erred in law by upholding the verdict.
Basically he was found guilty be a jury, but claimed the jury wasn't allowed to find him guilty.

There are very grave concerns that half of the priests prosecuted were found not guilty- and this point either to a grave miscarriage of justice against them; or by them.

A key issue here is that these crimes don't leave physical evidence that implicated the accused- they rely on the judgement of a jury.
if someone commited a number of these offences, there would be no evidence to add up.

It's a key principle of law that the number of accusations made against someone shouldn't influence jurors to conclude that they are guilty- one offender may face trial after trial but until a guilty verdict is reached the number of trails previously had are not allowed to be revealed to the jury

man this is going to be a long week

As a Catholic, he and ilk deserved to have their rights stripped from them and be tested on as animals. Disgusting, inhuman and embarrassing.

I smell a dirty Protestant.

Not religious, didn't care that he was convicted but I was pretty uncomfortable about this being a small part in the greater anti-Christian/traditionalism movement in Australia. He had been declared guilty by all media outlets before there was even a complaint.
ABC has been gloating about the ruling since.

He rogered a lot of lads, and helped protect others who had done the same. Doesn't really ingratiate you to people.